Today, as you probably know, marks the one week anniversary of the horrific shootings that took place in Newtown, Connecticut. In the week that’s gone by, much has been said by many people about what America needs to do to solve its growing gun problem. One voice we have not heard from in all of this: the National Rifle Association (NRA).

No, the pro-gun lobbyist group that historically believes there should be no limits on gun ownership, ever, has been completely silent on the matter. Hell, they even deleted their Facebook page. Well, the NRA finally pulled its head out of the sand this morning, the Friday before Christmas no less, and the resulting statements — delivered by NRA chairman Wayne LaPierre in a press conference, one in which he took no questions — were predictably ridiculous.

Watching LaPierre’s rambling, borderline insane speech, I couldn’t help but think, “He had a week to prepare and this is the best he could come up with?” Anyway, here’s the gist of what the NRA proposes that we, the nation known as the United States of America, should do: surround every schoolhouse in the country with armed guards, aka “good guys” to shoot the “bad guys.” The end. Problem solved.

Here’s the money quote: “If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible…Properly trained armed good guys.”

Yeah, seriously. Here’s video of the speech…

Well, here ya go Obama. If you can’t get some sort of sensible new gun legislation passed through Congress with these buffoons as your opposition, then you might as well just give up. I mean, Archie Bunker had basically the same idea back in 1972…

In 99, after Columbine, my town decided an officer patrolling the halls would help beef up security. He wore his full belt, gun included, around the halls. Big man too, so the most he ever did was break up fights every once in a while.

It really wasn’t an issue of “more guns = more chances of violence” For all we know, it wasn’t loaded, it was just there to intimidate, which is really all this is. You give someone the fear of “hey, I can be shot for doing stupid thing X” and they won’t do it.

And after what Cajun said, it actually DID work well. The armed officer at Columbine was able to get first responders on scene fast enough to prevent more shootings. Just like our latest sociopath, when the first responders arrived, the two knew it was over and shot themselves because they could shoot others.The officer also engaged in a brief shootout with one of the two, but was far out of range of what his pistol could accurately hit because he was outside having lunch, and not in the school as he normally was.

So maybe as a deterrent, I was wrong, but having someone armed and well trained (Not some hack off the street like a Zimmerman) was not a terrible thing to have at schools.

Very true. The Wild West is “wild” mostly in movies. Otherwise it had far far fewer shootings then nowadays. I am guessing because people had actual jobs and purpose back then instead of sitting in a basement and polishing their gun while desperate hoping that those emails are for real

Ugh, what pissed me off is their accusations against violent video games.

Full disclosure: I am a gun owner, but I’m also totally fine with more restrictions because I’m not a crazy person and every other gun owners I know are not crazy people either. The fact that this guy represents a demographic I technically belong to absolutely disgusts me.

Agreed. I don’t presently own a gun, but I grew up in South Louisiana where everyone had guns. I had my first gun when I was seven. It pains me that hunters and people who keep a gun in home for protection are now looped in with clowns like LaPierre. I don’t see how any reasonable human being can be against restricting the average citizen’s access to military grade weaponry. What’s next? DRONES FOR EVERYONE!

Basically, yep. I know plenty of non-crazy gun owners, including my own dad. But, unfortunately, you’ve got a whackadoo vocal minority who seem to care more about their right to own an assault weapon than other people’s right to, you know, not get shot.

I do know some crazy gun owners. One’s an American WASP right-wing nut who thinks the government is coming for him. The other is a Cuban Catholic right-wing nut who thinks the government is coming for him. They both believe in their heart-of-hearts that they’ll be able to stand up to the United States Armed Forces, if and when that becomes necessary. Strangely, they prefer Obama on guns because they think he’s just a pussy and won’t ever really do anything on the issue. They think Hillary is Satan, as in here to steal their souls.

For home protection you want a hand gun over a shotgun. A handgun is part of your hand. A shogtun is a big stick. Walk around your house with a baseball bat and see how much of a pain in the ass it is move around without hitting people or stuff with it.

For a home invasion you want a shotgun. I don’t know maybe money’s tight and you’re an entrepenuer.

I’ve fired shotguns in the past and while I know they can be a bit…unwieldy, in a situation that someone is in my home, I’d rather be able to hit everything than hit nothing. My logic is that even I destroy the TV, I’ll probably have ruined the invader too. With a pistol, in a panic, there’s a good chance I’d miss everything.

That’s if there’s distance between you and the intruder/girlfriend threatening to tell your wife about the affair, and he/she isn’t moving. The shotgun is going to have to travel a lot farther as you move to track your target. If you check right and the intruder is left you’re much more likely to be screwed with a shotgun than a handgun. If the intruder gets within about three feet of you the shotgun is almost useless. With a hand gun, the intruder has to get it out of your hand before it’s not a danger to him/her.

Unless you illegally saw off the barrel like you were Rico Tubbs (you should totally saw off the barrel like you were Rico Tubbs). But then you’re going to have to buy two shotguns: Rico to let a fool know what’s up and Grandpa to show the police when they start asking questions.

We need a stronger vetting process, possible a cap on the number of working guns you can own and if your gun is used by your kid to shoot up a school, you need to be held responsible as an accomplice. Keep that sh*t locked up.

After 12 minutes in you can really hear his cotton mouth kicking in. This guy smoked a fat one before he started this conference. Probably why he fucked up so many times in a single speech he had all week to prepare.

What’s so infuriating about this is how they absolutely contradict themselves at every turn. You can’t preach personal resposibility (Guns don’t kill people, people do) and then, turn around and blame video games, music and movies INSTEAD of blaming the nutball with the gun. Is the new motto, “Guns don’t kill people, mass media does?”

Let’s go with the anti-gay marriage argument:
Ugh, how am I supposed to explain to my kids why there are armed guards at their school!?

Or the anti-tax argument
What if the armed guards form a union!?

The only solution would be to outsource these armed guards. We could hire guards from African child militias to protect our schools. They’re kids, so it would required no explanation to our children and they’ll never form a union being on work visas.

As someone who actually believes in the 2nd Amendment, I can say that Wayne is not helping. Armed guards at elementary schools? Insanity.

I feel I should go on a Chris Rock-type “black people vs. n-words” rant, but for gun owners.

A ban of high-capacity magazines isn’t the least bit unreasonable. And though I doubt an assault weapons ban would have a demonstrable effect on anything, I don’t think it would be unconstitutional either.

This no compromise stuff is stupid and, in the long-term, highly counterproductive. As Sun Tzu said, he who defends everything defends nothing.

I’m amazed the party of fiscal responsibility that were shitting themselves over $3M to study the DNA of bears in Montana is for instituting a federal police force for each of the 99,000 schools in America.

I was in Mexico a few years ago and there were armed police (with automatic weapons) standing around shopping malls. I’m not sure I felt safer because the cops were there or less safe because they felt it was necessary to have them there (and so heavily-armed).

I’m Canadian, I don’t own a gun, I’ve never met anyone who owns a gun, and I’ve never felt less safe without one. But, if I lived in a place where everyone and their grandma had a gun I think I would feel a bit more paranoid. More guns does not equal less problems.